The Kevin Bracken Story: These Alternative Websites and media outlets have not covered the story AT ALL.

I have just done a search on several of the most popular alternative websites for any information they have posted about Kevin Bracken. This story, about an important person in Australia, and the popular support he has gotten after his stand about 9/11 truth, should be everywhere, at least on the alternative media.
And yet, not a word.
I went to each of these sites, put a search for whatever they had published about Kevin Bracken. None of the searches came up with any stories.
I feel this is a good indication of a real purposeful censorship. It is hard to miss this huge story. I am not surprised at the msm avoiding the story. But we rely on the alternative media to tell us about issues that the msm and their corporate sponsors are not keen on us seeing.

Let's follow these sites about other big 9/11 stories and see how they avoid the topics.
Something is obviously going on. It is not just ignorance of the facts. They do not want to publish this information. I call that very irresponsible, if not criminal.

These are the media outlets that have not covered the Kevin Bracken story:


If you have seen some stories about Kevin Bracken in these outlets, let me know. I am only going by what I have seen, not seen, and searched.

Typical...they think we are insane...the majority of the world?

Or the foundation funding etc is affecting there editorial decisions...whatever it is it's disturbing.

So what do we do? I know we write an editorial attacking because they are actually getting the news out ;-) that should help (sarc) !

Regards John

I'm beginning to believe it IS the majority of the world........

............I keep seeing statistics that seem to say most people in the world realize that the official story of 9/11 is full of lies.

But you just don't get that sense here, in the US. And I guess that is because the media is considered here to be legitimate, and if they don't cover a story, there must not be a story.

Kevin Bracken is a BIG story. Not covered here at all.
And, so, the American people can't know about him. If I tell them about him they figure that there really can't be much to what I'm saying because if there was, they KNOW they'd have heard it on the media.

Too many

... of these sites have already defined themselves by their anti-truth stance. The problem is that they would have to admit they were very wrong on what is perhaps the most important story of their own lifetime. And they would have to admit they were fooled by people that they have repeatedly characterized as foolish.

Instead of going down that painful path, they have chosen to attempt running anti-truth anti-war sites. This is an exercise in futility for all to see, and in a way it adds to the value of 9/11 truth.

When the falsity of the official story of 9/11 becomes commonly accepted knowledge, people will need to remember why it took so long for that to happen.

I agree, Kevin, and thanks.

The alternative sites are, as you say, mostly antiwar sites. That is sort of their underlying mission. Yes, they have other issues they cover, but antiwar is the most important to them, it seems.

But it has become clearer and clearer to me that antiwar activism is completely wasted time and energy these days. The "system" knows how to ignore this kind of activism, and the population in general doesn't get excited enough about stopping war for anything to change.

The ONLY way I can see of stopping our imperial wars and militarism here at home is getting out the truth of 9/11.
It is my ultimate goal.
And, actually, I am not even so extremely antiwar, compared to many others. I see a place for a military and even war at times. I spent 30 years in the military, in different capacities and groups, but what I see now is completely unnecessary wars for resources and special interests, and none of our wars now have to do with defending our great nation. The wars and occupations are, in a word, immoral.

I am so disappointed in the antiwar organizations like MoveOn, and the antiwar alternative media. We would have long ago convinced the world that 9/11 was an inside job, and had a real investigaton, had the media done its job.

I'm honored! Op Ed News took this story,

enhanced it, and gave me credit for it.

Thank you Saman Mohammadi!

This is going on Prison Planet

While this story of mine has generated little interest here, it is now the number four Google item for the term Kevin Bracken, and it is on OpEdNews and now Prison Planet, enhanced nicely in these outlets.

I hope the owners/managers/writers of the alternative news outlets listed are watching this.
If they are going to censor the news, THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

And Bravo to Prison Planet and Opednews.


What a delight to see.

It is important to show that these sites haven't covered this

However, I think adding this comment, "I feel this is a good indication of a real purposeful censorship," is just not necessary. Simply because it is vague.

'The alt. media not covering one article indicates purposeful (and what kind of purposeful?) censorship?'

These are the types of thoughts that will most certainly fill the minds of the left wingers who are already turned off to 9/11 truth for attacking their favorite comedians when they read this article you have written Paul (pfgetty). You need to be more specific and have proof as to whatever purposes you feel are implied by the sights not covering this story or other stories.

"Something is obviously going on. It is not just ignorance of the facts. They do not want to publish this information. I call that very irresponsible, if not criminal."

This quote is also very vague and has nothing included to back it up. It will also sound ridiculous to the left wing open minded people who read this article. This type of rhetoric weakens your point which I think we are all upset about (ie of the limited coverage from all media outlets). It is also will absolutely not inspire a fan of counterpunch to go and ask them why they won't cover it. These types of quotes come off as conspiracy theories simply because they are to vague and not backed up. This is exactly what the "debunkers" at some of the sites you listed have said about us. If we (9/11 Truth) assert connections which are NOT provable, we re-enforce the stereotypes and character bias's which we have been so upset to see some media outlets assert. We only solidify a barrier which has been created primarily from a lack of knowledge or a lack of quality information being available to an individual. It is disrespectful to push claims of some insidious intention with out serious proof. If 9/11 Truth focus's on presenting quality information, free of radical, insulting, or speculative assertions, WE WILL reach out to the majority of the left and to the media outlet's they respect.

We do know

that Alternet, Antiwar, Counterpunch, DemocracyNow, HuffingtonPost and Daily Kos have an "anti-conspiracy theory" policy... They have all in one way or another, through public statements about comment moderation, hate-filled ridicule or abrasive columns, affirmed this position. Publicly. It's no secret. However, I just don't think there is more to it than reflexive aversion. And much of that aversion is because of the relentless promotion of theories such as 'no plane hit the Pentagon'.

Any reasonable person, including and especially intellectuals from the left would deem that grounds for complete exclusion of anything that even remotely resembles 9/11 Truth. I took me a while to come to my senses w.r.t. the Pentagon attack, and I have to say I'm flabbergasted that so many say (or imply, by faux agnosticism) that no plane hit there. Another example is the 'hijackers alive' material. Our Achilles heel is mistaking falsification as rational grounds for substitution of the generally accepted version of events for a narrative based on baseless conjecture. Contrast that with the nanothermite paper. The nanothermite paper is positive evidence, or verification, of wrongdoing, just like the anthrax attacks. I might step on a few toes again by bringing this up, but there is no point in looking away. In fact, looking away is the worst possible option.

In another comment, John Wright (LeftWright) said that he spoke to Amy Goodman and his take on the matter was that she was mortified of addressing 9/11 Truth. Another plausible explanation lost in a sea of disgruntled speculation about the alternative media. I agree that these alternative media outlets are part of the cover-up, because their editors should themselves be able to separate the wheat from the chaff instead of a wholesale denunciation of critical thought and 9/11 skepticism. But I do not agree (yet) that they are 'globalist mockingbird media' to borrow one of the more hysterical snitchjacketing headlines often seen at Infowars and their siblings. Globalism is a word devoid of meaning, like 'new world order', because it can mean anything to anybody, regardless of either malicious or naive, world-bettering intentions.

The answers to the questions about alternative media censorship are right in front us. We need only open our eyes.

For additional context: Dan Rather.